Dismissed¶20

Roshan Hazam Alias Roshan Baraik v. the State of Jharkhad

Jharkhand HC26 Jun 2024Cr.Rev./493/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Theft of paddy; Section 379 IPC; discharge petition rejected; prima facie case; framing of charge; plea of title and possession to be considered at trial, not at discharge stage; pendency of civil title suit not a ground for discharge; malicious prosecution by informant; S.A.R. Case No. 412 of 1993/1994; Jagarnathpur PS Case No. 366 of 2014; G.R. No. 6407/2014; Misc. Criminal Appeal No. 3808 of 2018; Judicial Magistrate Ranchi; Cr. Revision No. 493 of 2019; Jharkhand High Court; amicus curiae honorarium Rs. 5000.

What did the court decide?

No relief to the petitioners; the criminal revision is rejected. The Court appreciated the service of the learned Amicus Curiae and directed the Secretary, Jharkhand High Court Legal Services Committee to pay her Rs. 5000/- at the earliest. ¶20

Roshan Hazam Alias Roshan Baraik Vs the State of Jharkhad — Jharkhand HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether the discharge petition of the petitioners ought to have been allowed on the ground that the dispute is purely civil in nature, a title suit is pending, and an S.A.R. Case was decided in favour of the petitioners' grandfather — i.e., whether mere pendency of a title suit is a ground for discharge from the offence of theft under Section 379 of the IPC.

¶17

Court's answer

Mere pendency of a title suit cannot be a ground for claiming discharge from the offence of theft; unless and until there is an order of a competent Court that it was the accused who was in possession and that the informant had lodged the case maliciously, no relief can be granted at the stage of discharge.

¶17

Ratio / Principle

A plea of title and/or possession in defence can be considered during trial and not at the time of framing of charge.

¶19

Key takeaways

The criminal revision lacks merit and is accordingly rejected.ratio¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal revision under the jurisdiction of the High Court of Jharkhand against an order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi dated 30.01.2019 in Misc. Criminal Appeal No. 3808 of 2018 (G.R. No. 6407/2014), rejecting the discharge petition and finding a prima facie case under Section 379 of the IPC (theft of paddy; F.I.R. Jagarnathpur PS Case No. 366 of 2014). Held: mere pendency of a title suit (and an S.A.R. Case decided in favour of the petitioners' grandfather) is not a ground for discharge from the offence of theft; absent an order of a competent Court that the accused was in possession and that the informant lodged the case maliciously, no relief can be granted at the stage of discharge. A plea of title and/or possession in defence is a matter for trial, not for the stage of framing of charge. Criminal revision dismissed; honorarium of Rs. 5000/- directed to be paid to the learned Amicus Curiae by the Secretary, Jharkhand High Court Legal Services Committee.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 493 of 2019

¶2

------

¶3

Roshan Hazam @ Roshan Baraik

¶4

Anuj Hazam @ Anuj Baraik .... .... …. Petitioners

¶5

Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Rakhi Kumari .... .... .... Opp. Parties

¶6

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶7

For the Petitioners : Mr. Juhi Kumari, Amicus Curiae For the State : Mr. Ravi Prakash, Spl. P.P.

¶8

------

¶9

Order No. 09 Dated : 26.06.2024

¶10

This criminal revision is preferred against the order dated 30.01.2019 passed by the learned Judicial magistrate, Ranchi in Misc. Criminal Appeal No. 3808 of 2018 arising out of G.R. No. 6407/2014 by which the discharge petition of the petitioner was rejected and prima facie case was found to be made out under Section 379 of the IPC.

¶11

The written report lodged by Rakhi Kumari on 13.11.2014 is the basis

¶12

of the case.

¶13

As per the F.I.R., there was theft of paddy from the field of the informant by Roshan Hazam and his father Anuj Hazam with other unnamed accused persons. On the basis of the written report, being F.I.R. Jagarnathpur PS Case No. 366 of 2014 was registered.

¶14

Police, on investigation, found the case to be true and submitted the charge sheet under Section 379 of the IPC against both the named accused persons. Discharge petition has been rejected on the ground that prima facie case was made out against the accused persons.

¶15

It is submitted by the learned Amicus Curiae that dispute is purely civil in nature and the title suit is pending between the parties. One S.A.R. Case No. 412 of 1993/1994 was decided in favour of grandfather of the petitioners.

¶16

Learned A.P.P. has defended the impugned order.

¶17

Having considered the submissions, this Court is of the view that mere pendency of a title suit cannot be a ground for claiming discharge from the for offence of theft, unless and until there is an order of competent Court that it was the accused who was in possession, and informant had lodged the case maliciously as

¶18

¶19

such no relief can be granted at the stage of discharge. Plea of title and/or possession in defence can be considered during trial and not at the time of framing of charge.

¶20

I do not find merit in the criminal revision, which is accordingly

¶21

rejected.

¶22

The service rendered by learned Amicus Curiae is appreciable. Secretary, Jharkhand High Court Legal Services Committee is directed to pay the sum of Rs. 5000/- to her at the earliest.

¶23

(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶24

Pawan/Uploaded

¶25

Roshan Hazam Alias Roshan Baraik v. the State of Jharkhad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Roshan Hazam Alias Roshan Baraik v. the State of Jharkhad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajendra Prasad R.K.Khosla Vs Braham Bhushan Khosla

Amrendra Kumar Sinha Vs State of Bihar And Anr.

Sardar Surendra Singh Vs State of Bihar And Ors.

Rani Mahato Vs the State of Jharkhand

Dinesh Karmali Vs the State of Jharkhand

Jagbandhu Das And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

Rajendra Prasad  R.K.Khosla Vs Braham Bhushan Khosla

Amrendra Kumar Sinha Vs State of Bihar And Anr.

Sardar Surendra Singh Vs State of Bihar And Ors.

Rani Mahato Vs the State of Jharkhand

Dinesh Karmali Vs the State of Jharkhand

Jagbandhu Das And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand

Rajendra Prasad R.K.Khosla Vs Braham Bhushan Khosla